Generations

Go home, King Ralph, and take your army of whiners with you

By Martin Bosworth

So by now you’ve probably heard that Ralph Nader is once again making a third run for the presidency. It pains me to have to say it, but Nader is making a terrible mistake and further tarnishing his legacy. He should not run.king-ralph.jpg

Let me begin by emphasizing how much I admire Nader and all he has done. As a consumer advocate myself, I probably would not have the career I do if it wasn’t for him. His work on everything from auto safety to the corporate takeover of modern politics should be an inspiration to anyone who wants to stand up for the little guy. I read his book, supported his presidency, and when compared to the stiff mannequin that was Al Gore in 2000 and the incipient stupidity of Dubya, I pulled the lever for him.

But this isn’t 2000. It’s a very different world, and Nader simply refuses to recognize that.

First there’s his age. At 73 (soon to be 74), Nader is even older than John McCain, a man for whom his age has become a vital consideration as to whether or not you can expect him to go the full eight years. If Nader were elected and served two terms, he’d be 81 by the time he left office. Given that the youthfulness of Barack Obama and the vitality he brings with him has so successfully captured the ever-elusive youth vote, what can Nader really bring to the table to appeal to them by comparison?

Second, there’s accomplishment. What has Nader really done in the intervening eight years since his first run, and the four years since his second run, which was even more of a blip on the radar screen? Robert Scheer asked these questions in 2004, after Nader’s abortive second run:

Nader is not responding to a grass-roots demand that he run but rather is stoking his celebrity as a media curiosity. He has no mandate from those who care deeply about the causes he has championed. His sudden cameo appearance over the objections of many who have followed him, bypassing existing Green Party organizations, smacks of overwhelming elitism. Nader has done nothing of significance since the last election to organize popular opposition to the disasters of the Bush government, yet he now deigns to assert that he alone can save us.

That’s truer now than it was then, and it leads into my third point–timing. Why has Nader waited until now, when we’ve pretty much nailed down who the nominees will be for both parties? Why didn’t he start his run last year, building a grassroots initiative to get on the ballot on all 50 states? Why not appeal to second-tier candidates like Kucinich, Gravel, or even Ron Paul, to work with him and get behind him–and bring their disaffected constituencies with him?

The answer is Nader isn’t running to win. He’s running to be a spoiler, to draw attention–and possibly votes–away from the Democrat and Republican alike. Unfortunately, Mike Huckabee was very right when he said that Nader “usually pulls votes from the Democratic nominee. “So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race,” Huckabee said–and if he’s saying that, it’s something for us to worry about.

Mike says in his post that if Clinton gets the nomination, he’ll vote for Nader. I’ve had similar statements levied to me by friends of mine who are so far left they make me look like Mark Penn–the idea that anything to the right of, say, Dennis Kucinich, is a corporate tool and not worth voting for. Maybe that’s true.

But what will this concretely accomplish, besides giving votes to McCain, whose supporters will probably not be voting for the Nader/McKinney ticket? Nothing. It will enable people who pat themselves on the back for being principled to absolve themselves of any responsibility for what will happen with what is, essentially, a third term of Bush. It’s the same kind of solipsistic self-aggrandizement that Nader himself is tremendously guilty of. It’s a very cynical, passive-aggressive, mealy-mouthed sort of stance-“I don’t care if the country is going to hell in a handbasket as long as I stay true to my principles.” Nader exemplified this back in 2000 when he flat-out said that he’d rather have Bush win:

When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush.” Not that he actually thinks the man he calls “Bush Inc.” deserves to be elected: “He’ll do whatever industry wants done.” The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: “He’s totally betrayed his 1992 book,” Nader says. “It’s all rhetoric.” Gore “groveled openly” to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: “If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

Well, thanks, Ralph. You got what you wanted. So why, then, are you running again? What can you possibly hope to accomplish this time that you didn’t before?

Matt Stoller is absolutely right when he says that Nader has a lot of things to say that need saying, but that he himself is part of the problem. It’s the same type of phenomenon as Edwards’ populist message pushing Clinton and Obama further left, even though he himself didn’t benefit from it. Hell, you can say it’s the same as bloggers on Daily Kos being more left-tilted than Markos himself. The simple truth is that the movement is bigger than the man–than any man–and those who would try to make it all about them are doomed to failure.

Just as the Obama movement evolved and took form beyond the influence of the movers and shakers in the blogosphere, so too has the populist movement grown and eclipsed many of its standard-bearers. Nader should realize this and have the dignity to step aside quietly, so as not to sully his many considerable accomplishments any further. We need victories, not ideological martyrs. We need Presidents, not kings. And we need someone who is truly out for the welfare of the country, rather than for themselves.

I used to think Nader was that man, but not any more. It saddens me tremendously, but there it is. He needs to go, and he needs to take the army of disaffected whiners who would assure four more years of Republican domination through their vote for him along as well.

14 replies »

  1. Pingback: www.buzzflash.net
  2. Jeff,

    There’s something inherently disturbing about the fact that you and I agree on this, but I’ll take the compliment as it was intended. 🙂 Thanks.

  3. Martin,

    To make you happy, just because I said that you wrote a great post doesn’t mean that I agree with the contents. I liked the post because it was well written, thought out, logical, and showed excellent scholarship. To me that is more important than whether I agree with the contents or not:)

    Jeff

  4. I will be satisfied if Ralph goes home. His time has passed and he has nothing to offer this race.

    The voters soundly rejected Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. Both support some of the same positions and were far better candidates.

    Ralph should go home.

  5. Wow…someone who actually admits that he contributed to the debacle of the 2000 election. Just who did you think you were helping by pulling the lever for “Ralph the Worst”. I have little to no admiration for him. He is a significant contributor to our country’s continued free fall into the black abyss of ignorance and religion.

  6. “Wow…someone who actually admits that he contributed to the debacle of the 2000 election. Just who did you think you were helping by pulling the lever for “Ralph the Worst”. I have little to no admiration for him. He is a significant contributor to our country’s continued free fall into the black abyss of ignorance and religion.”

    Hindsight is 20/20, but you still need glasses, Jane. Ralph Nader is far less a “contributor” to America’s present woes than empowered Democrats who have willingly allowed George Bush to do whatever the hell he wants. Why don’t you go bang on Pelosi’s and Reid’s doors and ask them why they won’t allow Kucinich and Conyers et al. to proceed with impeachment?

  7. “Why don’t you go bang on Pelosi’s and Reid’s doors and ask them why they won’t allow Kucinich and Conyers et al. to proceed with impeachment?”
    Good idea. Like banging on Obama’s and Clinton’s doors and demanding answers how they want to engage the republicans and change the awful new culture of corporate greed. Now, that they woo every single voter, is the best time to influence their programs. Evidence is the Edwards campaign, which led the others to change their goalposts.

    Hey, Mike, if you want more progressive politics, why don’t you invest some energy in changing things, instead of simply wasting your vote on Nader?

  8. “Ralph Nader is far less a “contributor” to America’s present woes than empowered Democrats”

    And, at the same time, he is far less a contributor to changing America, because of his almost total inavtivizty int he last years. He, who does nothing, can do nothing wrong.
    You think this qualification is good enough to vote for him? Aw, come on…

  9. “Hey, Mike, if you want more progressive politics, why don’t you invest some energy in changing things, instead of simply wasting your vote on Nader?”

    Gray, how many times do I have to tell you? You seem like a smart guy with a lot of time on your hands, why don’t you read some of my other posts and figure out that I support Barack Obama? I would only vote for Nader if Clinton gets the Dem nomination and no one else enters the race. Are you expecting Hillary and the superdelegates to thief this one?

  10. “why don’t you read some of my other posts and figure out that I support Barack Obama?”
    Ok, I might have got carried away a bit because I focussed on your 2000 vote for Nader. Sry. but honestly, I can’t understand how an intelligent guy can still defend this. This is even worse than Clinton’s support for the Iraq resolution. At least, she had to decide on uncertain data. But that Nader had no chance was a fact. I guess you criticize Clinton for not apoligizing for this grave mistake, but then, how can you still defend voting for Nader? Sry, but I really don’t get it.

  11. “Sry. but honestly, I can’t understand how an intelligent guy can still defend this. This is even worse than Clinton’s support for the Iraq resolution. (ABSURD) At least, she had to decide on uncertain data. But that Nader had no chance was a fact. I guess you criticize Clinton for not apoligizing for this grave mistake, but then, how can you still defend voting for Nader? Sry, but I really don’t get it.”

    No, you don’t get it. You don’t understand what the Greens were voting FOR in 2000. It’s very simple. With 5% showing, we would have had ballot status and matching funds for the next election. This is how movements are made, one step at a time. This was a direct challenge to the corporatist/fascist two party stranglehold.

    It failed, thanks largely to the corporatist/fascist Democrats, whose affinity for democracy leaves quite a bit to be desired.

    I never heard more whining than from Democrats who had to actually compete against a challenge from the Greens. They then created faux-Green “Progressive” Democratic groups, staffed by Kucinich et al, whose entire purpose is to squash third party challenges. Kucinich has shown how useless his politics are in influencing the Democrappic Party. He is simply a siphon, someone to keep the Naders/Greens/McKinneys from getting anywhere that could challenge the mountain of corruption lovingly called the Democratic Party.

    Just arrest all the war criminals at the top, and figure out who’s left. That’s the government we need at this point in our history. Oh, yeah, US “leaders” can commit no war crimes. They don’t exist.

  12. Instead of blaming Nader, if Democrats had any intellectual honesty, they would blame the mediocre Gore campaign (any semi-competent campaign would have had the ignoramus Bush snivelling in a corner), Gore not carrying his home state or Bill Clinton’s home state, the Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court for subverting the will of the electorate, etc. etc. etc. But instead they attack Nader and alienate many progressives with their whining and sense of entitlement.

    And regarding Iraq, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act), perpetuated the sanctions on Iraq that killed 1/2 a million Iraqi children, and imposed the longest bombing campaign on Iraq that any country has endured since the Vietnam War. Did Gore repudiate Clinton on this score? No. Who was Gore’s running mate? Joseph Lieberman.

    And the Democratic Party sure proved Nader wrong after the 2006 election when they caved to Bush and the Republicans time and again, didn’t they…

    The Democratic party is a corrupt band of thugs, and its apologists are snivelling whiners.

Leave us a reply. All replies are moderated according to our Comment Policy (see "About S&R")

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s